Eidos has taken the wraps off Deus Ex: Human Revolution at GDC, unveiling the next installment in the action/RPG series as a prequel in development at Eidos Montreal, and confirming the "Human Revolution" subtitle noticed earlier this year. A CGI trailer from the game is available on the Deus Ex Website along with some screenshots. There's an article on the game on Gamasutra where art director Jonathan Jacques-Belletete discusses the "credible" but not "super photorealistic" feel of the game's graphics and there's an interview on IGN speaking with game director Jean-Francois Dugas who explains the reasons this will be a prequel, confirms there will be no multiplayer support, and answers some questions about what's seen in the trailer. Word is: "The writers and development team have been working closely with the lead writer of the first two games, Sheldon Pacotti, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution segues nicely into the start of the first game, meeting some familiar characters along the way…" They say to expect more details at E3. The embedded version of the trailer follows.

Another part of the game's appeal were the moral choices. Do you stick with your brother and try to fight off the Men in Black or do you abandon him? Do you kill the French terrorist leader or your UNATCO partner? The moral ambiguity was a key appeal of the game.

The moral choices in DX are just as hamfisted as most of the ones seen in gaming today.

For moral choices done right, see Heavy Rain. Offering two-way morality choices that have little impact on the game were innovative back when DX was released but nothing of value remains there to be learned anymore. Your nostalgia goggles are making it more than it is.

DX was important because it pioneered some gameplay ideas and refined others. It's especially amusing because the development of DX was largely an accident and the developers themselves to this day do understand how it all came together and misunderstand what people liked about it.

People don't simply copy the DX formula because there is no money in it and a game like DX made today would cost 50x what it did back then. I applaud the effort that is going into this game and I wish them the best, if they have update some aspects of the game to make it more appealing then that's fine as long as we don't get a literal Gears of War action game.

DX3's dev team is headed up by Jean-Francois Dugas, the guy who said the original Deus Ex was "kinda slow," has admitted that the 360 is his gaming platform of choice, has said that he believes there's a lot to learn from casual games, and whose past efforts include R6: Vegas and Far Cry Instincts.

I laughed out loud a few times I got forced through a "deep" sociopolitical NPC conversation.

Much of that was part of the game's charm. How many games let you have such debates with random bartenders?

Another part of the game's appeal were the moral choices. Do you stick with your brother and try to fight off the Men in Black or do you abandon him? Do you kill the French terrorist leader or your UNATCO partner? The moral ambiguity was a key appeal of the game.

Then there were the little details. Almost everything you did, no matter how seemingly insignificant, was acknowledged in some way. Leaving Gunther in his cell on Liberty Island, kill the terrorist leader on the island, hanging out in the women's bathroom at UNATCO base. Very few games pay such attention to detail.

Then there was the open-ended gameplay. Don't like that little chinese kid talking trash? Blow him up with a LAM and dump his body in the river. Need to get inside that enemy base? Go through the sewers or the kill the guards at the front gate or use your strength augmentation to pile up a bunch of crates, then use your jump augmentation to climb up and over the perimeter wall. Stuck on the roof of a building filled with enemies? Turn on your stealth augmentation and sneak your way down or go in guns blazing or just jump off the roof. There were so many creative ways to deal with any given situation.

It's the little things that made DX so great and sadly, games these days forsake such things in favor of cinematic presentations and mainstream appeal.

I only played a little of DX back in the day, but did play it a lot more last year finally. Yeah that game is overrated. It's certainly decent gaming and great for the day, but some of you guys need to play that game again and refresh your memories.

It is loaded with cheesy and corny dialog and somewhat quirky gameplay due to its RPG/FPS nature. The biggest issue is probably the story/storytelling because it frankly is pretty shallow predictable stuff. I laughed out loud a few times I got forced through a "deep" sociopolitical NPC conversation. That stuff might hit a teenager hard, but that's about it. Oh and the "AI" is mostly lacking the "I" lol.

The atmosphere of the game is great though and the old school Unreal Engine and Straylight Productions soundtrack will stir the soul of anybody who was gaming back then.

The best things these guys could do if they want to make a quality sequel is to keep the maps huge and let the player have a lot of options in how to proceed. That's what DX did fairly well sometimes. I'd also like another futuristic electronic soundtrack if possible plz.

Because some customers may not want to make the commitment to having to spend months to finish a game.

"Commitment?" You act like playing games is a chore. If a game is enjoyable, I don't care how long it takes me to beat it. In fact, the longer it takes, the better. I don't even need to beat a game much of the time. For example, I never beat Oblivion and Fallout 3, mostly because the main quest lines didn't interest me. However, I put over 300 hours into Oblivion and over 100 into FO3 so I'm satisfied. I've never understood why some people feel that they must finish every game, even if they lose interest halfway through.

I do not want to get into a 25+ hour story-driven game if I expect it's going to take me months to finish it.

So you're concerned that you'll forget the story between play sessions?

Creston wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 14:48:And plenty of customers are annoyed when a new game lasts five hours. So why is YOUR customer right vs my customer?

I never said one or the other was "right". I said that companies should design games for what the majority of their customers want. If their customers want 25 hour games, the company should try make 25 hour games. If their customers want 10 hour games, the company should make 10 hour games.

It comes down to figuring out what your customer base wants and going from that.

I'll agree that games that just make you travel through the same halls (ie, Halo) over and over again are just retarded. But there's nothing wrong with a game that lasts 20 hours and is 20 hours of great content.

I don't disagree with this. If a game warrants 20, 30 or 50 hours, then by all means games can be made that way. As long as content isn't necessarily filler as some games do (like you said, Halo).

Yet there seems to be a prevalence of people who complain that if a game is longer than ten hours "They will never finish it."

I'm not sure what else to call that apart from "no attention span."

It's called "different customer needs/wants/expectations". That's how one is successful in business: meet the needs of your customers and the sales will follow. Doing anything else doesn't make sense.

StingingVelvet wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 12:05:He didn't really miss the point, and you just repeated what he had a problem with:

"as a result, would prefer something shorter not longer"

Why?

Because some customers may not want to make the commitment to having to spend months to finish a game.

And plenty of customers are annoyed when a new game lasts five hours. So why is YOUR customer right vs my customer?

MY customer can't do anything with your five hour game. They can't make it longer.

YOUR customer could play a game over a period of a few weeks.

To me, this seems a fairly simple equation.

I'd rather have a tight, quality, non-repetitive 10 hour game than a 10-hour game stretched to 30 hours with filler content.

How about a 30 hour game that's tight, quality and non-repetitive? You know, like the original Deus Ex?

I'll agree that games that just make you travel through the same halls (ie, Halo) over and over again are just retarded. But there's nothing wrong with a game that lasts 20 hours and is 20 hours of great content.

Yet there seems to be a prevalence of people who complain that if a game is longer than ten hours "They will never finish it."

StingingVelvet wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 12:05:He didn't really miss the point, and you just repeated what he had a problem with:

"as a result, would prefer something shorter not longer"

Why?

Because some customers may not want to make the commitment to having to spend months to finish a game.

Speaking for myself, I have a schedule which at times can get very busy (even now I type this Sat morning while in the office). As a result, game playing time is often limited to only a few hours a week. I do not want to get into a 25+ hour story-driven game if I expect it's going to take me months to finish it. I'd rather play such a game when I have more time.

Therefore, I tend to look for shorter games. It has nothing to do with short attention spans or anything of that sort. It just comes down to personal preference and not having boatloads of time to spend playing games.

Even if Mass Effect 2 takes you a year to complete that just means you got more awesome content that lasted you a long time. The only reason to want games to be shorter is if you don't really enjoy them enough to want to play them that long.

Part of the issue is that quantity != quality. Some games are padded out with filler material, so just because something is longer doesn't mean it's all good. I'd rather have a tight, quality, non-repetitive 10 hour game than a 10-hour game stretched to 30 hours with filler content.

shponglefan wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 09:45:The point (which you have missed by a country mile) is that different customers have different needs, and some have more limited time than others. I was simply trying to elucidate that a 25 hour game which could be finished in a week for some would take a month or more for others. And that some people, as a result, would prefer something shorter not longer.

You instead choose to spin this to suggest it's a problem with the customer. But I imagine you're not in product development.

He didn't really miss the point, and you just repeated what he had a problem with:

"as a result, would prefer something shorter not longer"

Why?

Even if Mass Effect 2 takes you a year to complete that just means you got more awesome content that lasted you a long time. The only reason to want games to be shorter is if you don't really enjoy them enough to want to play them that long.

Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2010, 23:59:Yeah, oh my God, imagine that! You'd have to play a game for a whole MONTH! What's the world coming to? Much better to just buy a new game every week and play that five hours, right?

This logic never ceases to amaze me. How something can be "too long" to be enjoyed.

The point (which you have missed by a country mile) is that different customers have different needs, and some have more limited time than others. I was simply trying to elucidate that a 25 hour game which could be finished in a week for some would take a month or more for others. And that some people, as a result, would prefer something shorter not longer.

You instead choose to spin this to suggest it's a problem with the customer. But I imagine you're not in product development.

Oh well, the leader designer has committed a sacrilegious act by calling the original game "slow" and saying “There weren’t enough exciting, memorable moments. It was aimed more towards a simulation rather than a game experience.”

DX3 sounded nice while it lasted, but the internets will never let this go, at least not for a couple days anyways.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 00:42:Actually, there is a reason: 512 MB of memory. Total. That's not a lot to work with. Another reason is the aging videocard. Since console developers target 30 FPS (and that's actually a challenge on console hardware), they can't make the game world as pretty as it could be.

And if it were a PC exclusive they would make sure old video cards could run it and that would hamper high-end graphics.

More to the point though, I was speaking about having large open levels, which was something IW lacked due to consoles. There is no reason for that limitation to still exist.

There is no reason now for Xbox development to restrict the freedom of the game world.

Actually, there is a reason: 512 MB of memory. Total. That's not a lot to work with. Another reason is the aging videocard. Since console developers target 30 FPS (and that's actually a challenge on console hardware), they can't make the game world as pretty as it could be.

Everything Deus Ex was could easily be implemented on a console.

Wrong. Deus Ex had a wonderfully detailed and flexible interface. It told you pretty much everything you could ever want to know. Console interfaces have to be streamlined because they need to be legible on a television and usable with a gamepad. Less detail, less efficiency, more clunkiness.

I have more faith in this being good than I probably should... something about the dev team's relentless insistance. Who knows though, it could be total crap.

Thing with me though is I love the Deus Ex concept and cyberpunk in general so much that if this is a straight up 7 hour shooter I will still probably love it to some degree. That's what gets me in trouble with Invisible War, I know it is crap compared to the original but I love the setting and ideas so much I love the game anyway.